Journalists and identity

The Web is having a rare old time attacking the National Union of Journalists for its continuing attempt to out-dumb Dumb and Dumber. In fact, it's somewhat unedifying to see a bunch of people who don't actually do journalism turn their "you so do NOT get it" ray onto the NUJ. However pointless the NUJ's pronoucements are (and, let's face it, the spectre of a union saying "this web thing, it's all a bit rubbish" has been pretty pointless) I think it makes sense to take the concerns of journalists at face value and see what they represent. I think the real thing we should be accusing the NUJ of is doing such a god-awful job about representing the issue and arguing it effectively.

To find an effective argument, look no further than Roy Greenslade, who is rapidly turning into a national treasure as someone who really gets journalism (he edited a tabloid, for God's sake) and who now really gets how journalism is changing as it moves online. His latest piece, a follow-up to an earlier post about his plans to leave the NUJ because of the current kerfuffle, argues the issues around journalism and representation calmly and effectively, by taking the example of a correspondent who works for a local newspaper and who finds himself at odds with his Union chapel, since the Chapel is resisting change:

The NUJ and me: a considered response | Greenslade | Guardian Unlimited:
So his predicament is obvious. He wants all the paper's journalists to embrace new working conditions, including the acceptance of unpopular weekend shifts and, presumably, multi-media skills. Though the NUJ chapel is hostile to these essential changes, and he finds himself arguing against it, he will remain a union member because he thinks it the best way to maintain overall journalistic skills.

In essence, this argument - along with its central contradiction - was advanced by Tim Gopsill, editor of The Journalist and Hélène Mulholland, mother of The Guardian's NUJ chapel. Tim wrote: "The union wants to try to preserve professional standards in a somewhat challenging environment."

Similarly, Hélène wrote: "What we defend, and are right to defend in my view, is the threat to quality journalism which we fear could be eroded by media companies who see the digital age as an opportunity to load more work on individual shoulders by cutting back on staff at a time when working across a number of platforms is increasingly becoming the norm."

Read the whole piece. As an ex-hack, I've got the following fairly random observations:

• journalists who identify themselves as "not-management" are making a big, big mistake
• journalists have historically thirsted for a collective identity, and the NUJ has historically provided that
• this has led to an "us and them" mentality, not just towards management, but also towards audiences (see, for instance, the NUJ's recent pronouncements on the evils of "citizen journalism")
• as journalists get closer and closer to their audiences, and in some instances become indistinguishable from them, this need for a collective "other" identity is going to fade
• if you don't like what management is doing, set up your own publishing brand. The only thing stopping you is fear.
• when it becomes trivial to establish new businesses, union power (almost by definition) begins to evaporate
• isn't it rather wonderful that this debate about the nature of journalism is taking place out in the open like this?